Areport released last week by the state Board of Elections about the potential effects of voter ID legislation should prompt Gov. Pat McCrory to pump the brakes on Republicans’ head-long rush to implement that requirement. With evidence that more than 9 percent of eligible voters in North Carolina lack qualifying identification, the level of disenfranchisement likely to result is far too great.

As has been said previously, instances of voter fraud are incredibly rare in this state, which makes the legislation look more like a solution in search of a problem than a necessary step to protect the integrity of elections. The new governor cannot responsibly pursue a measure with a strict requirement about identification at the polls in light of this recent report.

The high points during the last two years of Gov. Beverly Perdue’s administration were few and far between, but her successful veto of voter ID legislation stands out as one such action. Republicans used their first legislative majority in a century to push the measure, and touted it as necessary to instill confidence in the outcome of elections. The governor vetoed the bill, and a narrow majority sustained that decision.

For the complete article, please pick up a copy of The Daily Reflector. Current home delivery and electronic edition subscribers may log in to access this article at no charge. To become a subscriber, please click here or contact Customer Service at (252) 329-9505.

Comments

Voter ID is just another contrived tactic of anti-democratic voter suppression Republicans use because they not only lose the battle of ideas, but demographics are also working against them. Voter ID's, like any ID, can be forged, just like any underaged student can get an ID to drink. Solves NOTHING. Older voters don't have birth certificates, poor folks can't afford to get a copy. What would work is requiring a voter to provide the last 4 digits of their SS#. Once a citizen turns 18, they should automatically be registered in the district they claim residence. People should be encouraged to vote, not suppressed from voting.

An eligible voter is anyone who is of proper age and is in proper standing with the criminal justice system. There are many people who are eligible voters that, for whatever reason, never have and never will register to vote in their lifetime. Any Voter ID law would have no effect on these people at all.
This story makes reference to eligible voters on two occasions. Why would these people be categorized the same as a registered voter?
Personally, I believe that everyone who wants to participate in our political system should be able to do so. I would encourage those who want to participate to educate themselves on the system and the issues. Simply backing someone who has a "D" or "R" behind their name without understanding what issues they back is not healthy for the system.
I also believe that voters should have to provide a form of state issued identification (preferably with a picture) when voting. For those who do not have such ID, we should be able to provide it to them a little to no cost. We can get other social services into their hands, why not a photo ID?
Allegations of fraud abound every election cycle. Because it turns into a "he said/she said", nothing happens because of the lack of tangible evidence. This past election cycle, I heard a man who was working at one of the polls say that he was instructed to ask the voter if they still lived at the address listed on the rolls. He was instructed wrong, as the voter is supposed to provide that information. If someone wanted to pretend to be someone else at the poll and was asked to verify their address, instead of provide it; then didn't have to produce any evidence they were who they said they were, I think most reasonable people would think that system had the potential of being abused. The poll worker received the correct instructions the next day.

An eligible voter is anyone who is of proper age and is in proper standing with the criminal justice system. There are many people who are eligible voters that, for whatever reason, never have and never will register to vote in their lifetime. Any Voter ID law would have no effect on these people at all.
This story makes reference to eligible voters on two occasions. Why would these people be categorized the same as a registered voter?
Personally, I believe that everyone who wants to participate in our political system should be able to do so. I would encourage those who want to participate to educate themselves on the system and the issues. Simply backing someone who has a "D" or "R" behind their name without understanding what issues they back is not healthy for the system.
I also believe that voters should have to provide a form of state issued identification (preferably with a picture) when voting. For those who do not have such ID, we should be able to provide it to them a little to no cost. We can get other social services into their hands, why not a photo ID?
Allegations of fraud abound every election cycle. Because it turns into a "he said/she said", nothing happens because of the lack of tangible evidence. This past election cycle, I heard a man who was working at one of the polls say that he was instructed to ask the voter if they still lived at the address listed on the rolls. He was instructed wrong, as the voter is supposed to provide that information. If someone wanted to pretend to be someone else at the poll and was asked to verify their address, instead of provide it; then didn't have to produce any evidence they were who they said they were, I think most reasonable people would think that system had the potential of being abused. The poll worker received the correct instructions the next day.

*if voter ID is ever required, the powers that be will go out of thier way to make sure that EVERY ELIGIBLE VOTER gets a lawful ID--EVEN IF they need to come to the home of the voter. a voter id should in now way prevent the voter from voting.

The report showed a 9% mismatch between voter rolls and DMV records. It mentions certain obvious causes such as simple misspellings, changes of maiden names etc. It likely points to significant issues with the voter rolls, which could be used for fraud purposes. It does not support a conclusion that over 9% of possible voters lack photo id, unless you are a liberal with an agenda, in which case logic does not matter. Oh and one other thing: if there is a democrat to be found anywhere who needs an id on election day, Obama will see to it that they get one - probably by one of his special executive orders.